How long/easy is it for a person's body to get acclimated to caffeine? Recently I've been having a thermus of coffee upon waking and another at about 12 with good effects on energy/mood. Would doing this for weeks eventually decrease my sensitivity to the caffeine or not at those quantities?

Ergogenic effects fade, thermogenic effects do not.

__________________
"When I die, if there are no dogs in Heaven, I want to go where they went."---Will Rogers

What are your guys opinions on long-term use of the EC stack to maintain correct (bring up to normal levels) SNS output?

I've read a plethora of all of this info about Ephedrine, and it's combination with Caffeine, and long-term use. I particularly value some of the seemingly-solid information here, which advocates long-term use:

"You see, after a short while, both the stimulation and the appetite suppression go away and -- in the long run -- the effectiveness of ECA depends on the normalization of noradrenaline and adrenaline release. Thus, if you are a massively obese person with extremely low sympathetic tone, you are probably going to be amazed at how effective ECA is. However, if you have a relatively small amount of weight to lose and/or relatively normal sympathetic tone, you might lose weight until the appetite suppression stops, but then the party might be pretty much over for you. Likewise, if your main biochemical imbalance is serotonin deficiency, then ECA can't do much for you. It all makes perfect sense when you read enough science to cleanse your head of all the prejudice and false assumptions about obesity.

Lets clear up another false assumption. Obviously, the beta-3 drugs that are being developed cannot completely normalize someone who has a serious noradrenaline/adrenaline (NA/ADR) deficiency because these drugs only act upon one specific type of adrenergic receptor. You see, although the beta-1 and beta-2 receptors are largely responsible for the temporary undesirable side effects of ECA, under-stimulation of these receptors (due to NA/ADR deficiency) will cripple your fat burning ability. This is especially important for massively obese people with extremely low sympathetic tone.

Up-regulation of the beta 1 and beta 2 receptor cannot completely compensate for a serious NA/ADR deficiency. Unlike ECA, the beta 3 drugs do not correct this deficiency. The beta-3 receptor has been estimated to be responsible for about 40% of noradrenaline-based fat burning (9). Do you see what I'm saying? ALL the adrenergic receptors contribute to normal fat burning. Thus, NO selective drug can completely make up for a serious NA/ADR deficiency. Understanding this important fact may be the difference between life and death for some massively obese people.

You see, obesity is a REAL disease and ECA helps to normalize our fat burning ability by correcting a specific biochemical imbalance. How could it possibly work for everyone? But the people who are most likely to benefit from it are the people who NEED it the most -- the massively obese. When people refer to thermogenic supplements as "appetite suppressants," they are ignoring the very heart of our disease and perpetuating prejudiced attitudes and ignorant treatment methods that don't have a snowballs chance of working in the long run. Let your speech reflect the science of liberation rather than old, offensive, "sloth and gluttony" nonsense. Obesity is a REAL disease. Think about it.

Furthermore, juvenile-onset morbid obesity is a chronic condition that requires life-long treatment. If you stop taking thermogenics, you will revert back to your old abnormal biochemistry and -- like a mirror image -- your set point will return to your previous level of obesity. Why can some people eat whatever they want and not get fat? Biochemistry! Your weight is a mirror image of your biochemistry. This is especially true in cases where a massively obese individual has a normal appetite. The downside to this reality is that, if you have several biochemical imbalances, ECA probably will not lower your set point as much as you would like. If you find yourself in this position, a couple of likely culprits are serotonin and insulin. Conventional weight loss methods have a near 100% long-term failure rate because they do not address the fact that obesity is a REAL disease. Such thinking reflects prejudice, not science.

I've been using the stuff for about 2 months now with RFL, and I'm about to come off a pretty solid fat loss session in a few weeks, and obviously transitioning into maintenance and a period before I either go into a bulking phase or maybe a little more RFL or UD2, I'm wondering if I should just keep using the EC stack. Obviously the really long-term studies aren't out there, and it would seem as if most of what's been said is probably speculation. I've seen people post how they've been on it for months on end.

I prefer to use ECA as an "ace card" of sorts. It helps with the hunger and lethargy associated with low carb dieting (especially if you are doing more of a "fat fast" rapid fat loss kind of thing).

ECA is safe, but no drug is 100% free of side effects. Doesn't make sense to me to use it during anything other than a fat-loss phase.

I wouldn't recommend long-term use unless someone is obese. In cases of obesity, the benefits outweigh the risk (pun intended, I guess).

I usually go off ECA when I'm going back to a regular diet. Sometimes I'll step down to half doses, but usually the re-introduction of carbs helps to offset withdrawal--I can go "cold turkey" (except for coffee).

I haven't researched ECA in a long time, but I think there is some flawed logic in the article you've pasted.

I think whoever wrote that underestimates the appetite suppression factor in EC. That's not prejudice--it's just common sense. Anything that reduces your appetite makes it easier to diet. EC basically annihilates my appetite.

And I also have a hard time with the idea your body will simply turn into a tub of lard once you stop the EC stack--regardless of your lifestyle changes.